Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Computational evolution: taking liberties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolution has, for a long time, inspired computer scientists to produce computer models mimicking its behavior. Evolutionary algorithm (EA) is one of the areas where this approach has flourished. EAs have been used to model and study evolution, but they have been especially developed for their aptitude as optimization tools for engineering. Developed models are quite simple in comparison with their natural sources of inspiration. However, since EAs run on computers, we have the freedom, especially in optimization models, to test approaches both realistic and outright speculative, from the biological point of view. In this article, we discuss different common evolutionary algorithm models, and then present some alternatives of interest. These include biologically inspired models, such as co-evolution and, in particular, symbiogenetics and outright artificial operators and representations. In each case, the advantages of the modifications to the standard model are identified. The other area of computational evolution, which has allowed us to study basic principles of evolution and ecology dynamics, is the development of artificial life platforms for open-ended evolution of artificial organisms. With these platforms, biologists can test theories by directly manipulating individuals and operators, observing the resulting effects in a realistic way. An overview of the most prominent of such environments is also presented. If instead of artificial platforms we use the real world for evolving artificial life, then we are dealing with evolutionary robotics (ERs). A brief description of this area is presented, analyzing its relations to biology. Finally, we present the conclusions and identify future research avenues in the frontier of computation and biology. Hopefully, this will help to draw the attention of more biologists and computer scientists to the benefits of such interdisciplinary research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A haploid genome has a single chromosome sequence, whereas many organisms have diploid genomes, which are composed by two chromosome sequences.

  2. Epistasis is a dependency between the genes that may go as far as one gene suppressing the effect of another.

References

  • Adami C (1998) Introduction to artificial life. Springer, Telos

    Google Scholar 

  • Adami C, Brown C (1994) Evolutionary learning in the 2D artificial life system “Avida”. In: Brooks R, Maes P (eds) Proceedings of the artificial life IV, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 377–381

  • Aparício JN, Correia L, Moura-Pires F (1999) Populations are multisets-PLATO. In: Banzhaf W, Daida J, Eiben A, Garzon M, Honavar V, Jakiela M, Smith R (eds) Proceedings of GECCO-genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 1845–1850

  • Bäck T, Schwefel HP (1993) An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization. Evol Comput 1(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin JM (1896) A new factor in evolution. Am Nat 30(355):536–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandyopadhyay S, Pal SK (1998) Incorporating chromosome differentiation in genetic algorithms. Inf Sci 104:293–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvry P, Arbab F, Seredynski F (2000) Distributed evolutionary optimization in Manifold: the Rosenbrock’s function case study. Inf Sci 122(2–4):141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach O, Pasemann F (2001) Editorial: evolution and neural control of autonomous systems. Theory Biosci 120:173–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantú-Paz E (1995) A summary of research on parallel genetic algorithms. Technical Report 95007, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana

  • Correia L, Moura-Pires F, Aparício JN (1999) Expressing population based optimization heuristics using PLATO. In: Barahona P, Alferes JJ (eds) Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. EPIA’99-9th Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, New York, pp 369–383

  • DB (2009) Darwinbots. http://www.darwinbots.com/. Accessed 23 July 2009

  • Floreano D, Mattiussi C (2008) Bio-inspired artificial intelligence: theories, methods, and technologies. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Floreano D, Mondada F (1996) Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B: Cybern 26(3):396–407

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fogel DB (2006) Nils Barricelli–artificial life, coevolution, self-adaptation. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, pp 41–45

  • Fogel LJ, Owens AJ, Walsh MJ (1966) Artificial intelligence through simulated evolution. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (2002) The design of innovation—lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE, Smith RE (1987) Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithm with dominance and diploidy. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on genetic algorithms on genetic algorithms and their application, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 59–68

  • Goldberg D, Deb K, Korb B (1989) Messy genetic algorithms: motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Syst 3:493–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Harik GR (1997) Learning gene linkage to efficiently solve problems of bounded difficulty using genetic algorithms. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

  • Hillis WD (1990) Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Physica D 42(1–3):228–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinton GE, Nowlan SJ (1987) How learning can guide evolution. Complex Syst 1:495–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Ann Arbor (1992)

  • Husbands P, Mill F (1991) Simulated coevolution as the mechanism for emergent planning and scheduling. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 264–270

  • Komosinski M, Ulatowski S (2009) Framsticks artificial life. http://www.framsticks.com/. Accessed 23 July 2009

  • Koza J (1992) Genetic programming. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenski RE, Ofria C, Collier TC, Adami C (1999) Genome complexity, robustness, and genetic interactions in digital organisms. Nature 400(6745):661–664

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manso A, Correia L (2009) Genetic algorithms using populations based in multisets. Technical report, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon

  • Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolfi S, Floreano D (2000) Evolutionary robotics: the biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Paredis J (1995a) Coevolutionary computation. Artif Life 2(4):355–375

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paredis J (1995b) The symbiotic evolution of solutions and their representations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 359–365

  • Ray TS (1991) An approach to the synthesis of life. In: Langton CG, Taylor C, Farmer DJ, Rasmussen S (eds) Artificial life II: SFI studies in the sciences of complexity. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, pp 371–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechenberg I (1965) Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Technical report. Royal Aircraft Establishment, library translation 1122, Hants, Farnborough

  • Skinner C, Riddle P (2007) Random search can outperform mutation. In: Evolutionary computation, 2007. IEEE Congress on CEC 2007. IEEE, Singapore, pp 2584–2590

  • Thompson A (1998) Hardware evolution: automatic design of electronic circuits in reconfigurable hardware by artificial evolution. Springer-Verlag, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Toton III ET (2009) Helix digital life. http://necrobones.com/alife/helix.htm. Accessed 23 July 2009

  • von Neumann J (1951) The general and logical theory of automata. In: Taub AH (ed) John von Neumann: collected works. Volume V: design of computers, theory of automata and numerical analysis, originally presented in September 1948 at the Hixon Symposium. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 288–326

  • Wallin D, Ryan C, Azad R (2005) Symbiogenetic coevolution. In: The 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, 2005, vol 2. pp 1613–1620

  • Watson RA, Pollack JB (1999) How symbiosis can guide evolution. In: Floreano D, Nicoud JD, Mondada F (eds) ECAL. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1674. Springer, New York, pp 29–38

  • Whitley LD, Gordon VS, Mathias KE (1994) Lamarckian evolution, the baldwin effect and function optimization. In: PPSN III: proceedings of the international conference on evolutionary computation. The third conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 6–15

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luís Correia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Correia, L. Computational evolution: taking liberties. Theory Biosci. 129, 183–191 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-010-0099-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-010-0099-3

Keywords

Navigation